| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Sandeep Thakkar <sandeep(dot)thakkar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Date: | 2018-08-24 18:36:59 |
| Message-ID: | 22855.1535135819@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I saw Tom's answer, and it will work as far as it goes. But maybe we
> should look at doing that in configure instead of putting the onus on
> all buildfarm owners? It already knows if it's using a GNU compiler, not
> sure how ubiquitous the -ansi and -std=c99 flags are.
No, the only reason either of us are doing that is to force use of a
flag that's different from what configure would select by default
(which evidently is -std=gnu99 for gcc). Most buildfarm owners have
no need to do anything.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-24 18:38:28 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-24 18:34:00 | About those snprintf invocation macros |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-24 18:38:28 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-24 18:12:55 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |